Drinking-driving attitudes : a comparison of the first two household surveys of the Fairfax Alcohol Safety Action Project.

Jordan, Robert F · 1974 · ROSA P / Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC)

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study evaluates the impact of the Fairfax Alcohol Safety Action Project (ASAP), a community-based demonstration program in Northern Virginia designed to reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Specifically, it analyzes the effectiveness of the project’s public information and education countermeasures by comparing data from two household surveys conducted in 1971 (baseline) and 1972 (after one year of operations). The research was commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine shifts in public knowledge and attitudes regarding drinking and driving. The methodology involved random cluster sampling of 500 households in each survey year, matched to the local population by age, sex, and licensing status. Interviews were conducted in-person, lasting approximately 25–35 minutes. The questionnaire assessed variables including knowledge of alcohol-related driving offenses, attitudes toward penalties, understanding of blood alcohol concentration (BAC), and awareness of the ASAP campaign. Statistical analysis employed chi-square, Z-tests, and t-tests to identify significant changes between the two survey periods, with a 95% confidence interval. Key findings indicate several positive shifts in public perception. Recognition of the "problem drinker" rather than the "social drinker" as the primary cause of fatal accidents increased significantly from 36% to 47%. Awareness of the ASAP campaign rose from 47% to 60%, though specific recognition of the sponsoring agency remained low at 7%. Public attitudes shifted away from strong punitive sanctions toward rehabilitative measures; support for requiring medical treatment for third-time offenders increased from 27% to 32%. Knowledge of the legal presumptive BAC limit improved, with correct identification rising from 11% to 20% following a statutory change from 0.15% to 0.10%. However, general knowledge of traffic death statistics and misconceptions about intoxication (e.g., mixing drinks) remained static. Respondents consistently underestimated the number of drinks required to reach legal intoxication levels. The study concludes that while the public information campaign generated measurable improvements in specific areas, significant gaps in public knowledge persist. The authors recommend that future campaigns prioritize topics with static responses, such as drinking quantities and intoxication mechanics. Crucially, they advise revising the media strategy to include radio and television spot commercials, noting that the 1972 campaign’s reliance on special programs and newspaper items was insufficient for reaching the target audience effectively. The report also recommends supplementing standard statistical analysis with specialized computer programs to better evaluate time-series survey data.

Key finding

Public recognition of the presumptive blood alcohol concentration limit increased significantly from 11% to 20%, and the proportion of residents identifying problem drinkers as the main cause of alcohol-related crashes rose from 36% to 47%.

Methodology

survey

Sample size: 500

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement
• alcohol
• public messaging
• incidence prevalence

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation
• Empirical Findings: observational prevalence